Refund of stamp duty is not permissible when the duty has been utilized for a document that was executed but refused registration due to non-compliance with legal provisions.

ORDER

N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the 3rd respondent, District Registrar, in issuing the impugned order bearing Proceedings No.Refunds/8087/2021 dated 26.10.2022 refusing to refund the Stamp Duty and Transfer Duty pertaining to the pending Doc.No.P-99/2021 on the file of the 4th respondent, Joint Sub-Registrar-II, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same, insofar as the refusal for refund of the Stamp duty and transfer duty are concerned and also to direct the respondent authorities to refund the Stamp duty and transfer duty in accordance with law.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into a sale deed with one Khairunnisa Begum W/o. late Syed Yousuf Akhtar for purchase of open land admeasuring 3630 square yards in Sy.No.599, 600, 601 and 611 bearing H.No.8-1 corresponding to Old No. 320/1, situated at Shaikpet, Hyderabad. For the purpose of registration of sale deed, he approached the 4th respondent and obtained the particulars as to the Stamp Duty, Registration etc., to the tune of Rs. 65,37,500/- by way of Challan No. 920MPR050921 dated 05.09.2021 for Rs. 10,500/- and Challan No. 637RLR130921, dated 13.05.2021 for Rs. 65,27,400/-. Accordingly, he paid the Stamp Duty of Rs. 65,37,500/- on 13.09.2021 and presented the sale deed before the 4th respondent for registration on 15.09.2021 and the said document was received and admitted but kept pending bearing No.P-99/2021. Later, the 4th respondent refused to register the sale deed and passed the refusal order No. 1 of 2021 on 14.10.2021 citing various reasons for refusal to register the document P.99/2021.

3. It is submitted that after examining the reasons cited in the said refusal order, the petitioner had chosen to withdraw the said proposal and accordingly made a representation on 25.11.2021 for returning of the total stamp duty, registration charges etc., of Rs. 65,37,500/-. Since no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 36625 of 2021 and this Court disposed of the same on 24.08.2022 with the following order:

"Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already submitted representation dated 25.11.2021 to the respondent No. 4 - District Registrar, Hyderabad (South), Hyderabad, for returning the stamp duty of Rs. 65,37,900/- paid by the petitioner towards registration of document bearing No.P.99/2021, the respondent No. 4 is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2021 strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Thereafter, in obedience to the said orders, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2022, which reads as under:

"....

In this regard, the applicant is informed that the stamp duty and transfer duty which were paid through the subject challans are utilized with the said document under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act - 1899 as such the intended purpose of duties paid is served. Hence, the Stamp duty, Transfer duty which were paid in respect of the subject document cannot be refunded as the purpose for which they were paid are served.

...."

Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. On behalf of the respondents, the 3rd respondent, District Registrar, filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the 3rd respondent has obtained clarification from the 2nd respondent i.e., Commissioner & Inspector General Registration & Stamps, vide Memo No.S2/9935/2021, dated 21.10.2022 to the effect that the stamp duty should not be refunded in respect of refused documents which did not comply with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908. Following the said clarification of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned speaking order dated 26.